<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2019 (10) TMI 950 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387466</link>
    <description>The Allahabad HC commentary on classification under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 states that Parachute Coconut Oil was treated as hair oil rather than oil of all kinds, Medikar was treated as a medicament because its primary use was anti-lice treatment, and Revived Instant Starch fell within the starch entry because the Schedule did not distinguish between edible and inedible starch. The text emphasises that a taxing entry using a generic commodity description cannot be narrowed by importing an unstated limitation, and that ejusdem generis or residuary treatment could not displace the express classification entries. All classification questions were resolved against the revisionist.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Nov 2024 11:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=591916" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (10) TMI 950 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387466</link>
      <description>The Allahabad HC commentary on classification under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 states that Parachute Coconut Oil was treated as hair oil rather than oil of all kinds, Medikar was treated as a medicament because its primary use was anti-lice treatment, and Revived Instant Starch fell within the starch entry because the Schedule did not distinguish between edible and inedible starch. The text emphasises that a taxing entry using a generic commodity description cannot be narrowed by importing an unstated limitation, and that ejusdem generis or residuary treatment could not displace the express classification entries. All classification questions were resolved against the revisionist.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387466</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>